1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' to jump to entered page
of Press 'Enter' to jump to entered page
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' to jump to entered page
of Press 'Enter' to jump to entered page
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' to jump to entered page
of Press 'Enter' to jump to entered page
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' to jump to entered page
<h1>Court sets aside VAT assessment orders due to lack of consideration of objections and violation of natural justice principles.</h1> The court set aside the respondent's orders concerning VAT assessment for specific years due to a lack of consideration of the petitioners' objections and ... Reversal of Input tax credit - Non issuance of notice to petitioner - Violation of principle of natural justice - Held that:- While going through the averments and the contentions that are supported by the documents filed in the typed set of papers, it is seen that the impugned orders dated 28.11.2014 have not referred to the notices dated 26.11.2014 and that there is a blank about the notice date received by the petitioners - impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remitted back - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Challenging orders of respondent in relation to VAT assessment for specific years.Analysis:The petitioners, engaged in the manufacture and sale of Hank Yarn and Cone Yarn, challenged the respondent's orders for various assessment years. They contended that while Cone Yarn is taxable, Hank Yarn is exempt. The petitioners claimed to have reversed Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the purchase of capital goods based on Rule 10(4)(e) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules. They received notices demanding ITC reversal, but argued that the proceedings did not consider their objections or compliance with the rules. The impugned orders dated 28.11.2014 did not mention the notices dated 26.11.2014, leading to a violation of natural justice principles. The court found the respondent's approach lacking and set aside the orders, remitting the matters back for fresh consideration.The court noted that the impugned orders failed to reference the earlier notices and lacked details regarding the notice date received by the petitioners. Consequently, the court decided to annul the orders and instructed the respondent to re-examine the cases, ensuring due process and a personal hearing for the petitioners. The respondent was directed to comply with these instructions within four weeks from the scheduled personal hearing date. Failure to attend the hearing would allow the authority to proceed based on available records. The writ petitions were disposed of without costs, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
